[RobVer]

Originally Posted by K1W1

Hi,

I was referring to raised Tanks here. The Solenoid should be close to the lift Pump. Any pinhole will become self evident by showing a fuel stain quite quickly. If you let your engine room get into a state where rust etc on pipes causes pinnholes I would suggest that these would be the least of your problems. ............ Most large fuel system problems I have encountered are from poor design, execution and operation.

Oh. Then I don't understand. Why-for the solenoid? Must be stupid today.
Yes, obviously I'm talking about 'everything else being equal' such as regular maintenance etc. but, actually I find new installations quite often more 'holy' than old ones.

But mostly I like the comment about 'Dispensations' ...... yes ... I've wondered the same thing exactly. I wonder, if you tried, could one could get a 'material dispensation' for a hole in the hull?

[YachtForums]

Originally Posted by RobVer

If, on your yacht dependent forum, I must not mention this situation, or accept sneering at this proposal, then please do exactly as you wish, and ban me.

Your infinite lack of knowledge is what’s most evident. Maybe you should stick to other subjects you know nothing about. YF is NOT yacht dependent.

Originally Posted by RobVer

Then at least my whole contention would become self-evident.

The only thing that is self-evident here is your contention. I’ve seen NO evidence of anything else.

Originally Posted by RobVer

I wanted to open an OPEN discussion who find the same things. (with engineers only... that's why it's in the technical section.)

If only engineers are invited, then it’s not an “open” discussion. However, I AM an engineer and I find your approach dangerously similar to a raging lunatic.

Originally Posted by RobVer

I see no rudeness in that I have written, except possibly in retort against sarcasm.

I don’t see you as being rude. It’s much worse than that. More like an angry, frustrated child whose mother failed to breast feed him.

Originally Posted by RobVer

(To this end, may I suggest you ask others not to inflict sarcasm, based on evident ignorance, and then expect a weakly polite response?)

You have just insinuated that others responding to this thread are ignorant. And you wonder why you’re getting sarcastic responses? Rob, how old are you, like… twelve and a half?

Originally Posted by RobVer

Or is meek politesse, enforced political correctness, unwarranted diplomacy and, now, the threat of censorship, more important that honesty in this industry, as it is in others?

Nobody has censored you… yet. And banning you has nothing to do with censorship. It has everything to do with maintaining a respectable, intelligently enlightened community. In this regard, I believe you are failing miserably.

Originally Posted by RobVer

Maybe I should start my own blog, I wonder what the hit rate would be.

I don’t think you’re smart enough, and definitely not worthy of two of the respondents in this thread, who are among brightest guys I know. As a consultant to the Dept. of Defense and Lockheed Aerospace, I don’t consider myself too stupid either, with the exception of wasting time on this thread.

[RobVer]

Carl,

That must have taken some time over that. But I shall bow to your evident superiority of strength in this situation, except for one or two small discrepancies. Read this with a smile.

1) You have never, may I suggest, been a marine engineer. Not by most definitions. A rocket scientist, maybe. Or, if you have, only very recently and with very little time, if any, on ships. What is the truth?
2) You erroneously suggest that that I was firing broadsides or showing 'disrespect' to all the commentators. NOT true. Read again.
Kiwi, Roc Diver and AMG's comments were, either, perfectly polite or in the same part-humorous spirit. At least not 'little dog syndrome' attacking or sneeringly sarcastic. As such, they received utterly civilized responses in return...well I hope they thought so.
I don't attack those that respond reasonably. In writing, that would be utter COWARDICE, not something of which I've often been accused.
3) You, I felt snidely, suggest by your last remark that I have actually threatened, by opening a public forum, the commentators, especially two, in this forum. Now that certainly is NOT true, is actually rather an unfair distortion of the entire tenor of the 'debate'. I don't even know them to see. ( Are you speed reading I wonder, for that can often lead to these sort of misunderstandings, and I've noticed in the past you often seem to completely misinterpret the tenor of comments from others as well.)

The rest of your comments can be said to be practically true.
1) We all depend on you for this forum. (I need a smiley bowing deeply here.)
2) I surely do have an infinite lack of knowledge. I'm just a glorified grease-monkey, for God's sake, not an aerospace expert or a marriage counsellor.
3) My repeated contention is still not even understood, it seems, nor my word even supposed to be worth consideration for a second. In fact my comments were worthy of sarcasm. So, yes, precluding those words, there is then no evidence of it. (Of course, were my comments actually erroneous, any old marine engineer would know of evidence to prove me wrong, and would have spoken up....with his evidence no doubt. )
4) As your sentence says 'I AM an engineer and I find ....... similar a raging lunatic.' You have the right to insult me like that.. it's YOUR site, but I can't remember saying anything quite so ragingly and directly rude to anyone myself.
5) Breastfeeding: read last part above again. ( actually, despite it's raging rudeness, you are spot on here. I WAS bottle fed and, apparently, slept in an orange crate for a few months and was guarded by an Alsation, and from whom I learnt the meaning of loyalty.)
6) There was certainly at least ONE other on this thread that WAS actually ignorant of the subject in discussion. But, as I said, ignorance is in itself no reason for disdain or even a sharply worded retort.
But sneering sarcasm certainly is. As the sarcasm came BEFORE my first broadside.............well, you get the point. Remember debating?
7) Obviously not, but you THREATENED to censor me...exactly that. And a threat to censor is, in itself, a preliminary form of censorship. Ask the Chinese. And your definition of a respectable intelligent community would seem to ban your definition of, so called, politically incorrect bluntness or contention of any sort not backed up by immediate documentation to your own satisfaction. You hold the six-gun. But I would suggest that a forum is either free (barring repetitive foul or abusive language etc.) or it is not.
8) Yes. I'm pretty dumb, and the fact that I've written this proves it to me if nobody else. You, on the other hand, 'as a consultant to the Dept. of Defense and Lockheed Aerospace', and having designed this site (which is pretty nicely designed by the way.) must REALLY be pretty clever. I admit it. I don't know you personally so I would never deign to judge. I certainly would never abuse, threaten or correct you. I don't know you and you did not ask me. See?

Anyway, if you feel my comments on your 'forum' are misleading, dishonest, or so politically worrying, or unreasonable, as to be actually unacceptable, then please do feel completely free to delete them and my other details and access as well.

And thank you for providing me with something interesting to do on what would otherwise have been a boring weekend.

Yours sincerely,

[OutMyWindow]

Another one of those threads where “no fighting in the war-room” applies.
RobVer, you may/or not, have something to offer and thus make a meaningful contribution to YF, but your assumption that you can take on the imbedded Industry with your crusade for change, without providing “hard facts” that can be discussed and pondered doesn’t wash.
Most “engineers” are OK with things the way they are, or certification wouldn’t be pending.
Just *****ing, is just that. It‘s without value and doesn’t wash, turn it around man, and give examples of how you envision improvement with facts and numbers.

['RoundTheHorn]

Originally Posted by RobVer

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit so I'll assume it suits you.

My reply, sir, and you may wish to pay particluar attention to the last sentence of the second paragraph. Considering your rants in this thread, it does seem fitting.

From http://www.sarcasmsociety.com/

There is nothing more beautiful than sarcasm. That is definitely an overstatement but it should balance the moronic comment which says that sarcasm is the lowest form of humor. Now, whoever made that statement was desperately in need of a rectal broomstick extraction procedure.

Sarcasm usually requires a quick wit, and the ability to extract the minutest points of weakness in a conversation. So it is quite unlikely that it is the lowest form of humor as some would like to call it. Perhaps not being able to enjoy sarcasm is directly related to not having the ability to come up with sarcastic comments, which in turn creates a feeling of inadequacy, which in turn can spawn a Napoleon complex, that can cause someone to logicise that sarcasm is the humor of the stupid.

['RoundTheHorn]

Originally Posted by RobVer

5) Breastfeeding: read last part above again. ( actually, despite it's raging rudeness, you are spot on here. I WAS bottle fed and, apparently, slept in an orange crate for a few months and was guarded by an Alsation, and from whom I learnt the meaning of loyalty.)

For anyone confused by the our “very learned colleague,” his very common misspelling of the word Alsation is in fact spelled Alsatian, also known as the German Shepherd.

By the way, orange crate and guard dog, do I detect a modicum of sarcasm on your part? How dare you! This is a respectable forum.

[Blair]

RobVer has given me huge enjoyment whatever people have thought of his allegations - substantiated or not. No doubt he would be a top bloke to have a wee drink with! I can't contribute to this debate amongst engineers but I suspect he has a valid point to make and should not be 'blackballed' for retorting in kind to some unwarranted language in responses to him.

[RobVer]

Originally Posted by 'roundthehorn

For anyone confused by the our “very learned colleague,” his very common misspelling of the word Alsation is in fact spelled Alsatian, also known as the German Shepherd.

By the way, orange crate and guard dog, do I detect a modicum of sarcasm on your part? How dare you! This is a respectable forum.

I have offended you with my statement about sarcasm. I do apologise. I say this as why else would a man spend so much time in research to argue against a simple factual statement. However, we are in luck on that front.
As an old Royal Portoran, I need waste no time in such research.
It was in the late 1800's that Oscar Wilde used the phrase " Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"
And if sarcasm is meant intentionally to hurt a soul, then truly it is a lower form class of amusement, as is any comedic element relying on the discomfort of another. It is offensive and simply bad manners.

The orange box and and the Alsatian story is actually true. The vessel was m.s.Monarch. (later m.s.Mellisande.) on which, apparently from my mother in later years, I was also conceived. I had thought this not in the least sarcastic, just an amusing story, particularly as I was accused of not being breast fed, if such can be termed an accusation. (So, as I was not, it was an irony, not a sarcasm, and a good example of the difference between the two at that.)

However, I am so, so embarrassed about, and must apologise for, my occasional errors of spelling. These surely are worthy of your extremely evident and, again sarcastic, disdain and I shall try to have proof read everything I write in the future so as to avoid such offence.

But if you, or anyone else, can find even small amusement in your shouting from the rooftops about them, at least they are not for nought.

Now I really must stop playing with this, get properly dressed and go to lunch.

[RobVer]

Originally Posted by OutMyWindow

Another one of those threads where “no fighting in the war-room” applies.
RobVer, you may/or not, have something to offer and thus make a meaningful contribution to YF, but your assumption that you can take on the imbedded Industry with your crusade for change, without providing “hard facts” that can be discussed and pondered doesn’t wash.
Most “engineers” are OK with things the way they are, or certification wouldn’t be pending.
Just *****ing, is just that. It‘s without value and doesn’t wash, turn it around man, and give examples of how you envision improvement with facts and numbers.

Thank you, sincerely, for your moderate comment.
I know it's a bit long (or now more 'long gone' possibly.) , but if you would just read my original statements accurately, and literally, you will see that, as well as making some engineering statements, composed such as to raise an eyebrow, but which are based on my own knowledge, I also ask a number of self moderating questions. Also, the paragraph is in the form of a question. Do you see that?
If you would read the statements I make initially, and literally, you will see that at no time do I say that these rules are written down in any specific place. They are rules of basic fundamental seaworthiness and basic fundamental engineering and, as such, accepted in every shipyard worldwide and a fundamental contractual requirement of most insurance policies.
But that whole point seems to have gone over their heads and, of course, the lowest assumptions of ignorance or self-advancement assumed of me. Even the owner of the site accusses me of ignorance of my own profession!
My original intention, I thought quite positively, was simply to point out an error in course, (Hey, skipper!) to cause some debate and to ask if anyone else in my own discipline would like to discuss it over beer. That was all. Please read it.

Sadly, some responses I received missed the point entirely, were rude, accusatory and ignorantly sarcastic and did not follow the rules of debate in any way and, further, attempted immediately to come to the defence of the yachting industry charlatans.
Well, that was too much and when I made the quite unforgivable, but very Celtic, error in refusing to give up on, or back down from, my original position by repeating it again and again, ad infinitum, while fending off further sarcastic accusation.

Anyway, last night it was explained to me by a chap here that I'm dealing with colonials who, apparently and unlike us, often see immediate disagreement with a statement, rather than questioning or consideration, as a fundamental in debate; who rarely accept anyone's word, even for a second, and will always assume self interest, without explanation or proof in every single step and, finally, whose sense of amusement is most often satisfied from dishing out disdain to, and the discomfort of, others.

So now that I understand that situation, I shall do what I can to placate them in their ire.
I have written to two of the societies as well as to a friend at Lloyds (whose demands often rely on the societies in an case.) and shall reply as and when.

I do hope my efforts to placate all the nay sayers gives some satisfaction.

[RobVer]

RESTART:
I make a basic and simple statement below with the purpose of providing a foundation to reiteration of my original point, which I still see as important to bring to light, and as I would like to hear it discussed, in moderation by, hopefully, older professionals and younger career engineers and inspectors, and also to realign this discussion, from petty sneering contradiction, to the positive. Consider this investigative.

Statement: “Were a marine superintendent to build, say, a new 80m passenger carrying commercial vessel, fitted with forced inward E.R. ventilation feeding onto the main engines where parts of the engine were electronically activated, or controlled, instead of extracting and expelling hot air from those areas, it would be considered extremely poor engineering and he’d certainly be told to re-design and replace the entire system.
Were he to present that same vessel with the main engines and critical generators lifting their fuel from below, and without the use of a fully operational and practical ‘day tanks’, one for each power producing unit, that vessel, however beautifully faired and expensive, could not, and would not, be passed by any competent inspector, as seaworthy.” End of statement.

In my experience, however limited, these two factors in E.R. design are so fundamental and necessary that shipbuilders ( M.Sup'nts.s and specialist propulsion engineers etc.) from ALL corners of the world (Scotland, Ireland, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Korea, Brazil, Burma, China, Chile, Normandy ....anywhere you like to look.), NEVER even have to be asked to fit these basic essentials as stated, and also, generally, because they so well understand the reasons for their necessity, they fit them in such a fashion, and with such redundancy, that they do their job very robustly.

My original thread, so derided and sneered at by some, was to make this point by asking the question. 'What happened to these BASIC fundamental rules of construction in the yacht industry?'.. ‘Why is it now almost ubiquitously acceptable NOT to use these BASIC safety systems on many yachts? Does anyone care any longer, or even understand how important they are to the fundamental safety of a power driven vessel? Or that the lack of them renders such a vessel, certainly if viewed from the commercial passenger world, ‘fundamentally unseaworthy’? And, oh yes, that ‘fundamental seaworthiness’ is actually a basic requirement of insurance syndicates.

Finally, and please just assume for a moment that I’m old and hairy enough, and within my professional rights, to ask this embarrassed question; Why do I find more and more ‘vessels’, some of a not inconsiderable size, totally bereft of these fundamentals (and worse!), yet with glossy and extremely expensive certification confirming they are built to some class or other?

Is this such an unworthy question to ask? Are our regulations now SO complex, so political and so turgid that inspectors have forgotten the old fundamentals, or is there another, more cynical, reason?

(any daft or insulting comments suggesting that such systems are not a requirement on power driven vessels will be assumed to have come from another planet.)

[K1W1]

Hi,

What is your actual beef here?

Have you come across a boat built to and sailing under a Classification Societies Rules where the E.R. Ventilation is only done by Fan and the OP is pushed out by the incoming air charge not with any direct mechanical assistance?

I certainly wouldn't want to open and close the Engine Room too many times with that set up!

Have you come across a boat built to and sailing under a Classification Societies Rules where the fuel was drawn direct to the engines from main storage tanks? ( I am not talking about point and squirt of plastic fantastics here)

I do know of a Classed 58m Yacht where the Day Tanks are located in the hull under and slightly forward of the Generators, they have had a lot of trouble in the early days with losing prime and air in the system.

[Marmot]

Originally Posted by RobVer

If you would read the statements I make initially, and literally, you will see that at no time do I say that these rules are written down in any specific place. ... Please read it.

Please give your keyboard a few minutes to cool down and read your original statement:

Originally Posted by RobVer

How many realise that any vessel over 25m MUST have a gravity fed main-engine fuel system (day tank or self-replenishing type), and that it is an absolute requirement by Lloyds as well as most certification societies? How many realise why and how this affects basic safety, as well as half a dozen other elements of operation?"

Well, it appears to this reader that most of us read your original post correctly the first time.

Originally Posted by RobVer

How many know and understand the actual parameters of legal engine room ventilation systems and that these also affect insurance status. How many know why these rules exist? Or that the majority of yachts do not comply, even though the legal systems are usually cheaper to construct?

If you really want to know why I personally found your post offensive and deserving of the contempt and sarcasm it has brought you, just read your own words. You state categorically that there are absolute requirements codifed by IACS members but nowhere in your thousands of words of invective and smokescreening have you, the self described professional marine engineer surveyor, provided a single reference for the rest of us whom you so readily describe as ignorant.

The tone of your very first words deserves the contempt you have received. You don't just make a statement that some engine rooms are not being built to traditional "standards", you word it as an accusation that everyone but you is ignorant of the "rules" that you are so predictably incapable of providing a reference. You didn't do your homework Mr. Surveryor. And this brings up another item that makes your statments even more deserving of contempt and all the sarcasm you will continue to receive as long as you keep up this bizarre crusade.

Surveyors such as you come on a boat with an attitude that you are the guardian of all truths and standards and your opinion (baseless though it may be as you have so well illustrated in this thread) and convert your personal opinion to very real costs to the owner. Your statements in this thread illustrate so very clearly the worst the survey profession has to offer the industry. Your attitude and the ignorance illustrated by your "ready - fire - aim" approach is what makes you the poster child for much of what is wrong with all the issues you raise.

Do your homework first Mr. Superengineer/Surveyor, then come back and tell us we how to improve our product.

[RobVer]

Originally Posted by K1W1

Hi,

What is your actual beef here?
Have you come across a boat built to and sailing under a Classification Societies Rules where the E.R. ............the Day Tanks are located in the hull under and slightly forward of the Generators, they have had a lot of trouble in the early days with losing prime and air in the system.

Hello Kiwi,
To answer your question, yes. One sees both of the above scenarios, or variations on the theme, as well as half a dozen or more other fundamental mistakes, increasingly regularly and on larger and larger vessels. I can't say it more clearly.
But one hopes you feel, like I do, that this beef is the entire seagoing community's, rather than just mine.

Anyway, had a really lovely lunch this afternoon with a surveyor / adjuster who works for Lloyds register and Lloyds insurers amongst others. I have deep respect for this gentleman who was educated as a lawyer before becoming a seaman, and has a delightfully jaundiced view of bureaucracy.
He's retiring soon, so it didn't take much of a nudge for him to become wonderfully effusive on the subject of certification and the departure from reality in general. We discussed the subject maybe twenty minutes or more and he's promised to dig out some of the older (legible) guidelines. He also told me about one or two things that really make me happy, but which can't really be discussed here.

But I found a more immediate solution that works well.
It seems, after sharing a couple of bottles of red infuriater over 'le menu', and then some D.P. in the afternoon sun, daft plumbing, backward ventilation and spotty auditors simply become much less important!

[RobVer]

Marmot. Still missing the point old chap, still unable to decipher a definition and still, quite evidently, not a marine engineer. Sorry mate.
I really am. You are not even on the same planet, and I can't help that.
And also I cannot be held responsible for your being unable clearly to decipher the English language.
Yet still you seem unable to refrain from sarcasm and insult.
So, yet again, your out-of-context, yet intentionally insulting, comment is not worth dignifying with an answer, most especially as I have been warned by the Forum owner against taking swings at other's comments. Sorry.

[Marmot]

Originally Posted by RobVer

Marmot. Still missing the point old chap ...

Perhaps if you had a point it would not be so easily missed. I among others am still waiting for you to stop blowing smoke and tell us which of those very specific rules are not being followed ... my challenge to you still stands, put up or shut up.

So far you are unable to do either and that's not sarcasm, it is a crystal clear observation.